Case Background
The petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Constable in the District Police Force, Bettiah, pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/1998.
He claimed to have participated in the entire recruitment process. According to him, he met the physical standards, including height of 174 cm and chest measurement above the required minimum.
The petitioner further stated that he appeared in the physical efficiency test and written test and was declared successful in both. Despite this, he alleged that he was not appointed, while other similarly situated candidates were appointed as constables.
For many years, the petitioner did not approach the Court. He first submitted a representation on 19.03.2012 before the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. When no action was taken, he subsequently filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information, but without any effective result.
In the year 2014, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the Director General of Police, Bihar, and the Superintendent of Police, Bettiah. In this notice he requested that directions be issued to the Superintendent of Police, West Champaran, Bettiah, to appoint him on the post of Constable.
Even after this, the petitioner did not immediately move the Court. Only in the year 2017 did he finally file the present writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking a writ of mandamus for his appointment on the post of Constable.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman, heard the matter on 20.03.2025. Counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State were both heard.
The petitioner’s main prayer was for a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint him as Constable in the District Police Force, Bettiah, on the basis that he had been a successful candidate in all tests and examinations held under Advertisement No. 01/1998. He also sought any other relief to which he might be found entitled.
The petitioner’s side argued that he had fully participated in the recruitment process. He claimed that his height and chest measurements were above the prescribed standards, that he had cleared the physical efficiency test, and that he had passed the written examination.
He further claimed that he had secured a very good position in both physical and written tests, yet he was not granted appointment. He alleged that other candidates, whom he described as “similarly situated”, were appointed as constables whereas he was left out.
To show that he had pursued his grievance, the petitioner pointed to his representation dated 19.03.2012 addressed to the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, which was annexed as Annexure-1. He also mentioned filing an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and sending a legal notice in 2014 to the Director General of Police, Bihar, and the Superintendent of Police, Bettiah.
On this basis, he approached the Court by filing the writ petition in 2017, almost two decades after the original advertisement.
On the other hand, the State’s counsel strongly opposed the petition on the ground of delay and laches. The State pointed out that the advertisement in question was issued in 1998, while the representation by the petitioner came only in 2012. The writ petition was filed in 2017, which meant that around 19 years had elapsed between the advertisement and the filing of the writ petition.
The State relied on settled law from the Supreme Court of India to argue that such inordinate delay made the writ petition not maintainable. Two judgments of the Supreme Court were cited:
First, the State referred to the decision in P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152. In that case, there was a delay of 14 years in approaching the Court, and the Supreme Court held that the writ petition ought not to have been entertained.
The High Court reproduced paragraph 2 of the P.S. Sadasivaswamy judgment. In that paragraph, the Supreme Court explained why a person who is aggrieved by promotion of a junior should approach the Court within a reasonable time, ideally within six months to one year. It emphasized that one cannot sleep over their rights for many years and then seek to “unscramble a scrambled egg” by asking the Court to revisit old decisions and settled positions.
The Supreme Court in that case also observed that entertaining stale claims after many years wastes the Court’s time, clogs its work, and prevents it from focusing on legitimate and timely grievances. It held that such delayed petitions should be dismissed in limine, and approved the High Court’s approach of dismissing the petition and appeal on the ground of delay.
Second, the State relied on C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining & Anr., reported in AIR 2009 SC 264. In that case, the petitioner had approached the Court after about 20 years from the date of cause of action, and during the intervening period had only made representations. The Supreme Court refused to entertain the writ on account of this long delay and laches.
After hearing both sides, the Patna High Court examined the timeline. The Court noted that the advertisement was issued in 1998. The petitioner’s grievance was essentially that he was not selected in that recruitment.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s first substantial step, a representation, was made only in 2012, around 14 years after the advertisement. He then sent a legal notice in 2014, and finally filed the writ petition in 2017.
The Court summed up that from the date of cause of action, the petitioner approached the Court only after about 19 years. The Court considered this delay to be exorbitant.
In light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in P.S. Sadasivaswamy and C. Jacob, the Patna High Court held that such a stale claim should not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Court relied particularly on the reasoning from paragraph 2 of P.S. Sadasivaswamy, which highlighted that although there is no fixed limitation period for writ petitions, it is a sound and wise exercise of judicial discretion to decline relief to those who do not approach the Court expeditiously and thereby attempt to unsettle settled matters after a long lapse of time.
The High Court applied these principles to the present case and concluded that the petitioner’s writ petition suffered from gross delay and laches. It held that the passage of 19 years from the original recruitment advertisement to the filing of the writ petition was far beyond any acceptable limit for seeking relief in writ jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition. No direction for appointment or any other relief was granted to the petitioner.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for candidates who feel aggrieved in government recruitment processes, especially in Bihar.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that if a candidate believes that he or she was wrongly denied appointment, they must approach the Court within a reasonable time. Waiting for many years and only sending representations and legal notices will not save an old claim.
The decision reinforces that recruitment processes cannot be reopened decades later. Once selections are over and many years have passed, the Courts are very reluctant to disturb settled positions, especially where appointments of other candidates may have long been made and acted upon.
For ordinary citizens, the message is simple: if you think your legal right has been violated in a selection process, do not sleep over your claim. Collect your documents and seek legal advice promptly. Delay can itself become the main reason for losing the case, even if your original grievance had some merit.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can a candidate seek appointment as constable through a writ petition filed about 19 years after the original recruitment advertisement, relying mainly on representations and a legal notice sent years later?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that such a writ petition is barred by gross delay and laches and refused to entertain the claim, dismissing the petition.
Cases Cited by the Court
- P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152
- C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 264
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2558 of 2017
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 (2) PLJR 798
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman
Date of Judgment: 20.03.2025
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate; Ms. Shivani Mishra, Advocate; Ms. Pragati Singh, Advocate; Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. Manoj Kumar (AC to GP-4)
Nature of the Case: Writ petition (Civil) seeking mandamus for appointment to the post of Constable in District Police Force, Bettiah, pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/1998
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMjU1OCMyMDE3IzEjTg==-ibAF4ZknTRA=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
